One Foot in Front of the Other, and Go

You know how to run, don’t you Steve? Just put one foot in front of the other and . . . go. Not from “To Have and Have Not”

It’s dawned on me why I had such a visceral reaction to the recent RunnersRoundTable infomercial (which is what it turned into) on barefoot running. I was being told that I didn’t know what I was doing. I’ve been at this for a goodly number of years and have encountered my share of injuries, some lasting for extended periods (and about which I’ve written). I’ve had some moderate success at what I do and relish the perhaps too frequent – too frequent because I am sometimes led to go faster than I should – sense of being an efficient machine, lightly touching the ground with each stride.

So I resent some slow guy telling me that I don’t know what I’m doing.

RunnersRoundTable Infomercial: Barefoot Running

Last Friday, there was a discussion on the RunnersRoundTable about barefoot running, although it turned into an infomercial for the subject. The guests were Chris McDougall, author of “Born to Run,” and John Woodward, a Brit who believes we all need to be taught how to run.

Coincidentally I bought a copy of “The Runner’s Body” by Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas of one of my favorite sites, Science of Sport, and Matt Fitzgerald. Much of what I posted on footstrike comes from Science of Sport, and it turns out that there is a fair amount of discussion in the book about the “barefoot movement.”

A Variety of Styles; 2005 WC 10000

As noted in my review of “Born to Run,” there is good evidence that ancient humans hunted by running after their prey. Although they were not faster, they could run far longer because the prey would succumb to heat exhaustion. It follows that evolution favored barefoot running and barefoot running favors running on the forefoot. This bit of evidence has been pointed to as proof that running on the forefoot is the optimal way to run. The presence of shoes allowed people to get away from the natural way of running, and this has led to the plethora of injuries to which runners are heir.

So in the RRT episode, McDougall says everyone should fly over to the UK and take a lesson with (from) Woodward on the correct way to run. I have difficulty with this. Perhaps it’s because I don’t run on my forefoot, as I’ve chronicled, and know of very few faster runners who do. (The first one I noticed was the woman who won the NYRR Club Championship five-miler.)

Why do we need to be taught the correct way to run? In the episode, Woodward asserts that one doesn’t simply play tennis without lessons so why would running be any different.

“The Runner’s Body” takes up the discussion. We don’t need instructions on how to walk or on how to ride a bike. We take to them naturally. Hitting a topspin or a driver are inherently sport-specific/unnatural. And yet there is such a variety in running forms. I mentioned this as well in the heelstriking post, and that was just considering elites.

The question was posted on the RRT (it was from me) about why elites do not run barefoot, and the answer after some statements that Kenyans don’t wear shoes until they’re 17 or so (that was from Woodward) was that if you have good form you can wear whatever you want to wear (that was from McDougall). I thought this question important because presumably those aspiring to join the top ranks of runners will do whatever is optimal. If running barefoot were optimal, they would do it. (OK, you won’t get a lucrative Nike contract that way, but presumably the second-tier East Africans would be showing up and putting the shod runners to shame.) And, of course, lots of elites – Radcliffe, Hall, Goucher – probably did not go shoeless until they were 17.

“The Runner’s Body” notes the Japanese study and qualifies it somewhat by saying that in the end there are blurry lines among the three categories of heel-, midfoot-, and forefoot-striking and that many of the “heelstrikers” are closer to the mid-foot. So it is clear to me that barefoot-running is not the way to be fast. And being fast is not what our ancestors who chased down their dinners had to be. They had to be able to run for long distances. Like ultra-runners. But given the whole foot-strike analysis, it seems that to run fast forefoot landing is not the way to go.

But to the more general point about converting, like Paul on the way to Damascus, to the forefoot method, as I put it in a comment on the RunnersRoundTable site, I would be wary about simply jumping onto the barefoot bandwagon. McDougall says that there can be no middle-ground. One must ditch the shoes and not attempt to transition by moving to shoes with less and less support/cushioning. (Ironically, both McDougall and Woodward consider Newtons a bit of a scam because they don’t see why someone should pay lots of money to do what can be done for free. I say this is ironic because Newton’s pitch is that forefoot running is best and that it’s the shoe to do it for you and I’ve seen Newton advocates extol “Born to Run” as holy writ.)

“The Runner’s Body” analyzes some of these issues, noting that there is a deep difference between old-schoolers (such as me) and new-schoolers. I recommend the book and the discussion – it’s chapter 12 – and not surprisingly agree with its observation that

There cannot be a “one size fits all” technique. Rather, each individual has an optimal technique that is as unique to him or her as a fingerprint. This unique quality is clear when you watch any world-class marathon race. You can compare the smooth natural style of Martin Lel to the compact elasticity of Haile Gebreselassie and contrast this with the stocky, punchy style of Olympic champion Sammy Wanjiru and the seemingly tense and wasteful head movements and high arm carry of Paula Radcliffe. It’s difficult to suggest that any of these world-class runners should change his or her technique to run faster – there is a good chance it would do more harm than good.

(at 199) And I agree with their conclusion that “running is an activity that is:”

First, learned naturally, then . . .

Refined through practice, and then . . .

Can be subtly changed through instruction on a case-by-case basis.

Finally,

There almost certainly is a better way to run, but there certainly is not only one correct way to run. So don’t place yourself in the same box that the most dogmatic technique advocates do. Work with what you have, make intelligent choices, be patient, and seek to constantly improve but never radically redefine your running. And remember to relax!

(at 215)

For his part, McDougall says that he was told not to run again but then went minimalist and ultimately barefoot and has not had injury issues since. I know of others who have made that switch after having major injury issues, such as SteveRunner in the RunnersRoundTable episode. These are big and not particularly fast guys. Steve admits that he beat the hell out of the heels of his shoes. I think the braking phenomenon and resulting knee strain from landing on the heel with a straight-leg – an landing that Woodward cites as the reason heel-striking is bad. That type of strike is jarring and asking for trouble and I think one should do one’s best to move the strike more in line with the center of movement, and elite heel-strikers surely do that. But that type of technique problem can be remedied short of throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater and going to the other extreme, i.e., forefoot-striking. (In “The Runner’s Body,” Tucker and Dugas are against making such a change – “heel striking is probably best for most runners who land this way naturally” – but acknowledge that co-author Matt Fitzgerald “favors the new-school view that most heel-strikers can and should train themselves to at least become less-pronounced hell-strikers, if not midfoot-strikers.” (at 209.) It would seem to me that if one is not suffering injury, the stride should be left alone, but the cases I mention involve what appear to be chronic problems and thus modification seems justified.

I’m intrigued by both viewpoints (and you make some good points here), but what I’m especially troubled by is how the barefoot camp is starting to become so dogmatic as to insist that their way is the only way and not even consider other opinions or viewpoints. That being said, I’m pretty sure that a model of shoe I wore for several years (a stability, motion-control shoe) caused me some serious injuries, but I’m not quite ready to hit the road with only what God gave me at the ends of my legs, either.

The Tarahumara don’t run barefoot. I don’t know if “forefoot” running is “the way” or not, but I think it’s amusing that Chris talks so much about barefootin’ (which was a great tune, BTW) and the T-humara, but the fact is that they wear sandals, albeit thin-soled ones, when they run. And yes, I caught that part about once you’ve “got it” you can run in anything you want. I think too many folks are desperate for something that would allow them to run injury-free and they’re grabbing (too quickly) onto whatever piece of flotsam and jetsam the current presents. None of this means they aren’t right, but I think the jury’s still out.

I have really been taken aback by the lack of critical thinking from runners about the book. At its most basic level it is an autobiographical self-help book which suffers in it most basic point. ” This helped me, It can help everyone”. I noted this in my review of the book on my podcast. What further troubles me is McDougall’s (and by extension, his cheerleaders) outright ignoring of questions or ideas which don’t fit into his conclusion. Your question about elites is a perfect example. My friend who has a blog about running in Colorado (http://www.runcolo.com) interviewed McDougall calling him on an obvious point; that runners today are much different than even 30 years ago (weight, slower, etc) and that might account for some of the injuries. The question was unanswered in a rant about running shoe companies.

I have been running for 20+ years without a single major injury until this summer. I wonder what the Born to Run crowd would think of that. Ironically, I believe my current injury is a result of trying to alter my foot strike too much after I was suckered in by the book. Not that I didn’t enjoy the book or certain chapters. In my cheap-ass way I have also found that less expensive shoes are great for me.

Before all of the hoopla, I actually did a show on barefoot running in December, ’07. My take then remains unchanged. Running barefoot can be one of many useful tools in the spectrum of running. I am generally a ‘run a variety of surfaces’ guy anyway and barefoot is another surface which can provide benefit.

p.s. So far, no one has address the fact that Born to Run was highly praised on the Runner’s world Website.

As a novice runner watching the debate play out in lots of places this year, I’ve concluded that a lot of shoes are overbuilt, that people who grow up barefoot often make great runners, and that people who grew up in overbuilt shoes probably will continue to need some form of support.

I mean, I’d like to see if neutral shoes help strengthen my ankles to help my slight overpronation. But I just don’t see pounding my sedentary city-boy ankles on asphalt for a couple dozen miles without some kind of support.

I don’t want to get into an argument with Julie, but the fastest runners in the world most likely did train and race barefoot from age 5 to whatever. Also, I do recall seeing a couple of barefoot runners in past editions of the World Champs 5000m final. Also, Bikila in his first marathon Olympic gold.

Barefoot is not an all or nothing method. Zola Budd for instance wore shoes for much of her training.

Forefoot running is the way to go for *really* fast running. Sprinters are forefoot runners – sprint spikes don’t have a heel or ‘midfoot’. I also think that barefoot running doesn’t have to be always forefoot. How do you land forefoot when running down a steep hill?

On heel landings amongst elites… did you see the women’s 5000m final? One of the Japanese runners looked (from the side) like a fair dinkum heel lander. Obviously there’s no one perfect technique.

When I ran the quarter in high school, dipping under 50, I ran on my toes. I sometimes do that now when I do strides. But it’s a fundamental difference from how I ran/run when I ‘m not going that fast. And I did notice when I did some easy strides the other day on “grass” (some artificial stuff) without shoes after doing track stuff that I did not land significantly differently from when I had my flats on, perhaps a wee bit farther forward but not the altered, on my toes stride.

I view running barefoot in that context as akin to doing drills. It exercises and strengthens muscles that might become relatively weak in the normal running motion.

You talk about how natural your method of running is, but the question is could you do this without wearing a shoe? If heelstriking is the optimal way of running, why does it require artificial cushioning to achieve?

Valid point. I mean not how would I run in a state of nature it is how how do I run without thinking about it in the world as it exists. I wear running shoes and don’t think about how my foot lands. That’s what I mean by “natural.” Would I run differently in a world without shoes? Probably, given the foot’s construction.

That elite runners have a whole variety of foot plants belies the notion that any particular foot-plant is “optimal.” Assuming that without shoes (given the relatively weak heel) all runners over distance would run forefoot. Because they don’t necessarily do that without shoes, it follows that barefoot forefoot running is a necessity, not that it is more (or less) efficient than other methods. It is a Hobson’s choice.

If one wearing shoes runs (without thinking) towards the heel, it seems to me that she is doing what comes “naturally” to her. For the many (most?) elites who don’t run on the forefoot, that suggests that they are able to overcome what would be a disadvantage were they required (as by necessity) to land on their forefeet. In other words, in a shoeless world, someone like KK would been far behind the leaders when he set the world record.

That so many Kenyans supposedly begin running barefoot and don’t run in shoes until their teens would seem further evidence because of anyone surely they would go forefoot if it meant they would go faster because they are not “corrupted” by long-term shoe wear.

Finally, Brandon reposted a post that Newton had posted of a review by a podiatrist who calls himself “myrunningdoc” of Newtons (go to “Product Reviews”). I realize, of course, that Newtons are not barefoot, but Newton’s theory is that forefoot running is more efficient that heel-striking. My point about this doctor’s review is that he argues that forefoot striking is more efficient because the alternative is heelstriking in such a manner as to cause braking, and an inevitable requirement of increased energy to get back up to speed. I asked him why if this was so so many elites do not run on their forefeet. He has yet to get back.

Again, I don’t subscribe to the notion that any type of running is “optimal” for all types of runners.